Mindful Marketing
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Mindful Meter & Matrix
    • Leadership
  • Mindful Matters Blog
  • Engage Your Mind
    • Mindful Ads? Vote Your Mind!
  • Expand Your Mind
  • Contact

Does Your Baby Have a Boyfriend?

3/14/2015

 
Picture
Parents, you know how it is:  You’ve watched your baby girl grow.  Now she’s 18 and talk has turned to the inevitable—boys.  But isn’t 18 still far too young for a boyfriend?  It certainly is if you’re talking 18 months!

Old Navy, mass marketer of cheap-chic fashion, is well positioned with Millennials and Gen Y consumers.  From socks to swimwear, the retailer has a propensity for picking the right products and price-points.  Not surprising, one of its most popular product lines is jeans.

If you haven’t visited Old Navy’s website recently to shop for women’s jeans (I haven’t), you might be surprised to find 169 varieties of denims, including styles like “Rock-Star,” “Diva,” and “Flirt.”  You also may be surprised to see one style that’s targeted toward both teens and toddlers: It’s called “Boyfriend.”  Old Navy sells Boyfriend jeans for very little girls, from 5T down to 12-18 months.

Of course, girls that young don’t have boyfriends, and no reasonable person would think that Old Navy is suggesting that they should, so what’s the problem?  It’s cute to see babies dressed up like little adults, wearing the same styles as mom or dad.  Plus, the miniature versions aren’t just smaller; they’re also specially
cut for babies’ bodies.

Although all of the following may be true, we should also consider the direction in which our culture is evolving.   We live in a society that tends to over-sexualize and objectify women.  A sign of this trend is mounting pressure for younger and younger girls to act and look like women who are much older and more mature.  The imitation ranges from alluring make-up to revealing clothing.

Again, Old Navy is not advocating that babies should have boyfriends, but by giving its baby and toddler girl jeans this moniker, it’s promoting rather than discouraging the pressure just described.  Likewise, it’s worth noting why jeans and other apparel for girls use the “boyfriend” adjective—the girls are supposed to look as if they’re wearing their boyfriends’ clothes, as Hadley Freeman describes:

“To insinuate one has a boyfriend makes one look really cool and desired and validated (see: endless fashion blogs and tumblrs about models' boyfriends) and therefore it is super sexy to look like you just rolled out of bed (probably from having sex! Only cool people are allowed to have sex, ya know!), pulled on your boyfriend's clothes and hit the streets.”

Our little girls deserve time to be little girls.  They shouldn’t be forced to grow-up too quickly, especially in a sexual sense.  Encouraging such a hasty dash to maturity is harmful to them and unhealthy for our society (e.g., teen pregnancy: more than half of teen mothers never graduate from high school).

The apparent success of Old Navy’s Boyfriend lines suggests effective marketing and stakeholder value.  However, because the retail strategy compromises on important social values, Old Navy’s baby Boyfriend jeans should be considered “Single-Minded Marketing.”

Picture
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads and Vote your Mind!
Courtney Schmitt
3/27/2015 01:43:09 pm

This is a very interesting take on a style of denim! I agree that our society is over-sexualizing women and I think that it is simply not necessary to title the jeans as "boyfriend jeans". I think it would be easy for Old Navy to change the name of the toddler denim to fit their age more appropriately.

David Hagenbuch link
3/28/2015 04:21:59 am

Thanks for your feedback, Courtney. Yes, a different name for the jeans seems like it would be an easy and responsible fix.

Amelia Dagen
3/28/2015 06:45:03 pm

I completely agree that this is single-minded marketing! I think it's terrible that we have so shaped our culture that women's value is derived by their connections to men, and that this has extended to toddlers is very sobering. As you said, little girls should have a chance to be kids, without the pressure of looking a certain way or having the right connections.
I think Old Navy's products are quality (I myself shop there on occasion), and don't think they are wholly to blame for this. However, I would be happy to see them change their denim names. Because how "revolutionary" would it be if they named their jeans "Confident," "Independent," "Worth It," or even just simply "Beautiful"? No one would expect it, but I think it would make for some very mindful marketing.

Jessica Tonti
3/31/2015 01:54:23 pm

This definitely got me thinking! I wear boyfriend jeans because they are comfortable and I probably would not have thought twice when if I were to read "boyfriend jeans" on a tag for an infant. I do however feel that society has "over-sexualized" a lot of things including fashion. I am saddened that this sort of thing would realistically not have fazed me. I like some of the above comments suggesting that Old Navy could go against the grain by simply naming the jeans differently!

Leslie
3/31/2015 07:16:23 pm

I had never correlated "boyfriend" jeans with the "morning-after." It just appeared to me that they were called boyfriend jeans because of their level of comfort. I do agree though that the name of the fit should be changed to fit a toddler. This would lose the sex appeal and turn this into mindful marketing

Danae Mitchell
4/1/2015 09:12:32 am

This article really provoked my interest! The question as to whether children should be dressed like little adults is still up for debate in my mind. However, I agree that children should have their time to dress like children. Kids already desire to be older but as I have learned, once you are "older" you really wish you could be young again. Old Navy definitely is playing to its audience. Parents love to dress their kids like little adults but I do not think they understand the repercussions of that. I hope that if a mom connected the thought that buying their child "boyfriend" jeans associated them with "the morning after" idea, they would think twice about purchasing them. These jeans definitely do not uphold societal values but unfortunately do create stakeholder value.

Eric Alman
4/1/2015 04:12:04 pm

This article really sheds some light on the subject of society becoming over sexualized. When I was younger, I went through the awkward phase of wearing clothes I thought were cool (but were not) and acting like a kid. These days more and more kids are skipping the awkward stage and starting to dress and act like they are significantly older. With all the makeup some of these junior highers wear, it is hard to tell if they are fourteen or twenty. Kids should be kids and enjoy their childhood instead of trying to be something they are not and having the world push the idea of sex on them. They should wear clothes that fit them and become adults when they are mature enough to. This Old Navy brand of jeans is very single minded and it really does compromise social values, so I do not think it should even be sold, much less kept around.

Yoonji Kim
4/1/2015 08:00:51 pm

If the purpose of "boyfriends" jeans is to see babies dressed up like little adults, I don't think it should be named as "boyfriends" jeans. I support the purpose of "boyfriends" jeans, because it is sometimes cute for babies to wear like little adults. Old Navy, however, should have not appealed and named it in a sexual way. Regardless of Old Navy's original thought and purpose, many people can misunderstand about "boyfriends" jeans. I could see that Old Navy ignored upholding societal values.

Crysten Dean
4/2/2015 02:10:05 am

This article definitely gives something to think about. At first thought, why would there be anything wrong with a "boyfriend" jean for baby girls? They could match with their moms and be the cute little babies they are. However, when you get deeper into the subject, it becomes apparent that that probably was not the best name for a baby's jeans. While I can't imagine that Old Navy is trying to sexualize babies, it should be noted that the whole "boyfriend" jean trend as a whole is, as the author quoted, meant to sexualize women in some regard. They are meant to seem cool because, as the past and present tell us, many times a woman's worth is put on whether or not she has a boyfriend. Starting girls this young with that mindset is very problematic, as they will grow up thinking that they need the approval of men for all their actions. I think Old Navy could have definitely thought a little harder about the name for these baby jeans before selling them, and hopefully next time they will make a wiser decision.

Natalie Toyer
4/2/2015 09:17:56 am

Thinking about having kids one day, I don't really see too big of a problem. I always think of boyfriend jeans as being a comfortable and relaxed fit of jeans. Going deeper into the subject, though, I do realize that our culture leans toward over-sexualizing things (such as movies, books, music, clothing, etc.) and that this is a problem for not only girls but women everywhere feeling the pressure to live up to these expectations. In the case of the baby boyfriend jeans, I think the best solution would be to rename the jeans to make them more age appropriate and generate attention away from sexualization.

Emma Cho
4/2/2015 09:19:02 am

This is definitely interesting post. I've been hearing "boyfriend" fashion many times, but those ads were for teens and 20s; however, it's first time to hear that boyfriend jeans for babies. As the author said in the posting, it can be single-minded; however, I can see this positively from another perspective. For instance, by buying and wearing this boyfriend jeans to her little baby, mother can remind her beautiful memories before her marriage so that she can wish her cute baby to meet nice guy eventually and be happy. In that case, "boyfriend" jeans for babies may have some positive elements for social values.

Joseph Olvera
4/2/2015 09:56:02 am

This is an interesting take on the issue. I think this shows a divide of perception between the younger and older generation (or just different types of ways of thinking). With the way relationships and boyfriends are perceived, it could either be taken as something that is sexualized and "naughty" in some sense of the word, or at can be seen as extremely adorable (who doesn't like an adorable cute couple?) and innocent (because love is innocent and sex can be icky). You can kind of see this in different clothing trends where some take on the form of being edgy, sexy, and liberating, while others take on the cutsy look (some might argue it as a small form of infantalism or just perpetuating childhood into adulthood). It really depends on how you perceive it.

Kelsey Nyce
4/2/2015 10:05:12 am

I have not heard any talk about baby boyfriend jeans, so I was excited to read this article and learn more about the world of toddler fashion. I agree with what the article is saying in that our society is over-sexualized and seems to advertise from this perspective. I enjoyed the quote at the end of the article describing how boyfriend jeans essentially create the idea that you just rolled out of bed and literally put on your boyfriend's jeans. I honestly have never considered this message, even though the name is pretty self explanatory. I think there is a place for toddlers to be toddlers and kids to be kids and it seems wrong to have babies wearing boyfriend jeans. This is a definite example of single-minded marketing.


Comments are closed.
    Subscribe to receive this blog by email

    Editor

    David Hagenbuch,
    founder of
    Mindful Marketing    & author of Honorable Influence

    Archives

    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014

    Categories

    All
    + Decency
    + Fairness
    Honesty7883a9b09e
    * Mindful
    Mindless33703c5669
    > Place
    Price5d70aa2269
    > Product
    Promotion37eb4ea826
    Respect170bbeec51
    Simple Minded
    Single Minded2c3169a786
    + Stewardship

    RSS Feed

    Share this blog:

    Subscribe to
    Mindful Matters
    blog by email


    Illuminating
    ​Marketing Ethics ​

    Encouraging
    ​Ethical Marketing  ​


    Copyright 2020
    David Hagenbuch

Proudly powered by Weebly